Remastered QM2 – New tonnage measurement?

Hi,

Due to the new staterooms added to Deck 13 forward, the QM2’s tonnage should have increased (yes, I realize that a passenger ship’s tonnage is based on permanently enclosed space and has nothing to do with weight). Has anyone seen the new tonnage figure? I know that the QE2’s tonnage gradually increased as staterooms were added to the top of the ship.

Thanks,

Chuck

Good question seacruise9, and one that crossed my mind when the plans to add cabins were first announced.

Trouble is, from 2004 when she entered service, I've seen several different "gt" mentioned for QM2; anything from 148,258, through 148,528 to 150,000 and even 151,500.

And these measurements are in books and on websites that seem to know what they are talking about! (I think 148,528gt is most likely).

However, I would be very interested to know the true "gt" figure now the cabins have been added.

I know how she must feel: more age, more tonnage:rolleyes: Happens to the best of us!

I know how she must feel: more age, more tonnage:rolleyes: Happens to the best of us!

What was the old joke? "You board as a passenger and leave as freight"?

Seriously, whilst I know we are not talking about the "weight" of QM2, I would be interested to know her "remastered" "tonnage"

(BTW, Recent scientific studies have shown that women who carry a little extra weight live longer than the men who mention it)

Best wishes to you.

Good question seacruise9, and one that crossed my mind when the plans to add cabins were first announced.

 

Trouble is, from 2004 when she entered service, I've seen several different "gt" mentioned for QM2; anything from 148,258, through 148,528 to 150,000 and even 151,500.

And these measurements are in books and on websites that seem to know what they are talking about! (I think 148,528gt is most likely).

 

However, I would be very interested to know the true "gt" figure now the cabins have been added.

Hi,

Like you, I have seen several different tonnage figures listed for the QM2 (which is why I did not include a tonnage figure in my original post). I agree that 148,528 (before the remastering) is most likely the correct figure. I wonder if the new partial deck is enough to push this figure to 150,000?

Ocean liners (the QE2 and SS France/Norway come to mind) seem to add tonnage over the years as decks are added or expanded.

Thankfully, the addition to the QM2 is barely noticeable and does not harm the ship's appearance (in sharp contrast to the unfortunate additions to the Veendam and Island Princess).

Chuck

Just wondering what the fascination with gross tonnage is in the cruising public. I'm a maritime professional, and gross tonnage rarely comes up in discussion. It's mainly a tool for assessing fees and taxes. When it comes to a cruise ship, I'm far more interested in stability data like GM, TPI, and MT1".

Just wondering what the fascination with gross tonnage is in the cruising public. I'm a maritime professional, and gross tonnage rarely comes up in discussion. It's mainly a tool for assessing fees and taxes. When it comes to a cruise ship, I'm far more interested in stability data like GM, TPI, and MT1".

Where's my "like" button Chief? :D

Just wondering what the fascination with gross tonnage is in the cruising public. I'm a maritime professional, and gross tonnage rarely comes up in discussion. It's mainly a tool for assessing fees and taxes. When it comes to a cruise ship, I'm far more interested in stability data like GM, TPI, and MT1".

Hi,

I think the gross tonnage figure is useful in comparing the size of ships and the passenger space ratio. For many years, passenger shipping/cruise lines have emphasized this figure. In 1990, NCL added the infamous decks to the SS Norway and increased the ship's size by 6,000 tons. At the time, NCL heavily promoted the fact that the SS Norway had surpassed the Sovereign of the Seas and regained the title as the world's largest passenger ship. In 1996, Carnival stressed that the Carnival Destiny was the first passenger ship to exceed 100,000 tons.

This is similar to the publicity and interest that surrounds the exact height of the world's tallest skyscrapers.

Chuck

Hi,

 

I think the gross tonnage figure is useful in comparing the size of ships and the passenger space ratio. For many years, passenger shipping/cruise lines have emphasized this figure. In 1990, NCL added the infamous decks to the SS Norway and increased the ship's size by 6,000 tons. At the time, NCL heavily promoted the fact that the SS Norway had surpassed the Sovereign of the Seas and regained the title as the world's largest passenger ship. In 1996, Carnival stressed that the Carnival Destiny was the first passenger ship to exceed 100,000 tons.

 

This is similar to the publicity and interest that surrounds the exact height of the world's tallest skyscrapers.

 

Chuck

I had the feeling it was simply bragging rights. And a ship like the QM2, which has probably the highest space ratio out there, won't feel the addition of 75 passengers (3% increase) in a possible 2000 gt addition (maybe)(less than 2% increase).

This tonnage game has gone on almost as long as there have been liners. Just my opinion but I have from time to time been more comfortable on ships with a lower passenger space ratio than on some of the bigger "people movers" with a larger PSR. Again, just my peculiarity.:D

And considering that the largest ship ever built (in length, displacement, and deadweight tons) was still larger than Oasis in gross tons, and could carry two Oasis class ships.

I worked for Jahre years ago. And work it was! Jahre Viking was a sight.:eek:

According to Stephen Payne "Gross Ton" is not weight. On passenger ships it's a measure of volumne. One gross ton equals approximately 100 cubic feet inside.

According to Stephen Payne "Gross Ton" is not weight. On passenger ships it's a measure of volumne. One gross ton equals approximately 100 cubic feet inside.

On all ships it is a measure of volume. However, you are confusing "Gross Tons" with the no longer used "Gross Registered Tons". GRT was one ton to 100 cubic feet, but GT is a somewhat different figure because it uses a somewhat amorphous constant "K" multiplied by the actual volume. Also, GRT only measured the cargo and machinery areas of ships, not counting crew accommodations, while GT includes the entire enclosed volume of the ship, including crew areas and tankage.

And, yes, even I fell for that in my previous post. Oasis has a displacement generally given as around 100k tons, so Jahre Viking (aka Seawise Giant) could actually carry 5 Oasis class ships.

Going on two years now and it doesn't appear that Cunard will remeasure her.  If we were to estimate her new tonnage, we could probably look to the SS Norway.  Her tonnage was increased by 6000 by running a new deck of cabins (standard height) along the entire length of her superstructure.  There was also an additional small deck above this deck.  Judging that the QM2 and the Norway were roughly the same length in superstructure, QM2's new deck of cabins would be about 1/3 of the length of the Norway's added decking and slightly wider.  This would probably be about 2000 tonnes.  Even being generous, it could only be about 3000.  Looking at the variations in QM2's reported tonnage, even with the high figure of 3000 added to the highest tonnage of 151,000, she would still only be around 154,000 tonnes.  That would still keep her in the same position on the list of world's largest liners (behind Oasis class, Quantum class, Norwegian Epic and Freedom class respectively as of 2018.)  With a list of planned new builds exceeding 150,000, it wouldn't seem worth the trouble or expense of gaining a few tonnes.  

For those who are confused how "tonnage" (gross or net) can be a measure of volume rather than weight (which is referred to as "displacement" and measured in tonnes), it can be useful to visualize that the archaic origin of volume tonnage was based conceptually on a measure of how many "tun" barrels would fit within the cargo spaces. A tun barrel holds 980 litres, or 216 gallons (259 US gallons).
For ships built after 1982 (as mentioned above), both GT and NT are obtained by measuring the ship's volume and then applying a mathematical formula. According to the International Maritime Organization (IMO) :

- Gross Tonnage is based on "the moulded volume of all enclosed spaces of the ship" and

- Net Tonnage is based on "the moulded volume of all cargo spaces of the ship" (and cannot be less than 30% of the GT).

And yes, in this context passengers are the cargo.
 

12 hours ago, Joserus said:

Going on two years now and it doesn't appear that Cunard will remeasure her.  If we were to estimate her new tonnage, we could probably look to the SS Norway.  Her tonnage was increased by 6000 by running a new deck of cabins (standard height) along the entire length of her superstructure.  There was also an additional small deck above this deck.  Judging that the QM2 and the Norway were roughly the same length in superstructure, QM2's new deck of cabins would be about 1/3 of the length of the Norway's added decking and slightly wider.  This would probably be about 2000 tonnes.  Even being generous, it could only be about 3000.  Looking at the variations in QM2's reported tonnage, even with the high figure of 3000 added to the highest tonnage of 151,000, she would still only be around 154,000 tonnes.  That would still keep her in the same position on the list of world's largest liners (behind Oasis class, Quantum class, Norwegian Epic and Freedom class respectively as of 2018.)  With a list of planned new builds exceeding 150,000, it wouldn't seem worth the trouble or expense of gaining a few tonnes.  

Oh, believe me, when the new deck was added, the ship was "remeasured".  That's the law, as all legal documents describing the vessel, like the Certificate of Registry, must include the GT of the vessel.  Whether or not Cunard feels the need to publicize the new tonnage figure is another thing.  Probably the only way to find out the correct tonnage figure is to go to whatever class society Cunard uses (Lloyds?), and access their database, or take a ship tour and ask the engineers about the tonnage markings "carved" (welded) into the "main beam" (a girder or bulkhead in the engine room) that has the IMO number, GT and NT figures welded there.

6 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Oh, believe me, when the new deck was added, the ship was "remeasured".  That's the law, as all legal documents describing the vessel, like the Certificate of Registry, must include the GT of the vessel.  Whether or not Cunard feels the need to publicize the new tonnage figure is another thing.  Probably the only way to find out the correct tonnage figure is to go to whatever class society Cunard uses (Lloyds?), and access their database, or take a ship tour and ask the engineers about the tonnage markings "carved" (welded) into the "main beam" (a girder or bulkhead in the engine room) that has the IMO number, GT and NT figures welded there.

Thanks for the info chengkp75!  Finding the new tonnage would also solve the issue of the many reported sizes.  I actually like the idea of the ship tour as that involves sailing on her again 😉 

1 hour ago, Joserus said:

Thanks for the info chengkp75!  Finding the new tonnage would also solve the issue of the many reported sizes.  I actually like the idea of the ship tour as that involves sailing on her again 😉 

Not wanting to stop you from cruising on QM2 again, but I went to the Lloyd's Register site, and their database shows QM2's GT as 149,215.  I'd take this as pretty confidently accurate.

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

Not wanting to stop you from cruising on QM2 again, but I went to the Lloyd's Register site, and their database shows QM2's GT as 149,215.  I'd take this as pretty confidently accurate.

Another mystery solved!  Thanks, this is great.

2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Not wanting to stop you from cruising on QM2 again, but I went to the Lloyd's Register site, and their database shows QM2's GT as 149,215.  I'd take this as pretty confidently accurate.

Hi, 

Isn't this the same tonnage figure that was listed before the 2016 refit? It looks like Cunard has not changed the tonnage to reflect the refit. 

Chuck

1 hour ago, seacruise9 said:

 

Hi, 

 

Isn't this the same tonnage figure that was listed before the 2016 refit? It looks like Cunard has not changed the tonnage to reflect the refit. 

 

Chuck

I can't say what the figures were in the past.  What I do know is that class would have had to have new tonnage calculations done for any modification of the ship, as the Certificate of Registry, and Certificate of Class must reflect the current ship's tonnage.  We modified my tanker to add a bow thruster, and the deduction for the thruster tunnel, as well as the change of some volume from a ballast tank to the thruster machinery space required a change in GT, so their figure (and their website may or may not be kept current, as it is in fact a free portal of theirs, not their commercial database) should be the most accurate.  Going from pepprn's posted figure of 148,258 to the current 149,215, without actually calculating the volume added, I can't say how correct it is.  Another complicating factor is that the "K" coefficient that is used with the ship's volume to calculate Gross Tonnage, is not a linear constant, and the larger the ship the more the calculated GT varies from the actual volume, but there are also design factors into what makes up "K", so only a naval architect would know how much the GT changed for a given volume of cabins added.

Aims in life : to be able to us the following sentence, casually:

'We modified my tanker to add a bow thruster...'

Thanks chengkp75 for making me smile!